This is a 9500-word essay, (divided in three parts) that I submitted for a course in EFL University, Hyderabad. Read Part I here.
The Necessity of Apoliticism - Part II
The rhetorical argument
On 28 April 2020, American President Donald Trump tweeted that he had scheduled a White House Press Conference at 5:30 P.M.13 In isolation, the tweet appears to be a harmless relaying of important information. However, in context of his seismic impact in American politics, it is no surprise that even such an innocuous tweet would be the cause of heated debate.
One of approximately 21,700 responses to Trump’s tweet (as of May 11 2020) was by @real_defender: “Best President ever. Thank you Mr. President for all you do.” One of 465 responses to this tweet was by @glamelegance: “Worst President ever!”, it said, with a clown emoji.
Let’s assume that rhetoric in politics must be constrained with rationality. From a purely rational standpoint, there would be much to unpack from this interaction; for instance, the confidence with which @real_defender proclaims Trump to be the best President of all time; and their gratitude for, apparently, every single action that he has taken. Many people might take umbrage with both assumptions, either by comparing the failures of Trump with the successes of his predecessors, or by interrogating the morality of his actions. Of course, @glamelegance’s response must also be worthy of interrogation. On what basis, for instance, does she ascribe to Trump the superlative of being the worst President ever? Once these two parties of a conversation consent upon the parameters of differentiating the best from the worst, can one perhaps acknowledge that there has been an attempt to be rational.
However, Twitter being no sacred space for rational thought, @glamelegance’s tweet was responded to (one reply among 135) by a picture from @LindaPyle_ showing a picture of a smiling and saluting Trump, with the caption “Greatest President Ever.” To this tweet, among other replies, was one by @Rodney97939539: “Maybe if you live in Cuba or Saudi Arabia. Those countries are already run by governments similar to a Trumptatorship.” And so on.
A rationalist, I think, would argue that all of these tweets have, packaged within them, a list of assumptions that need to be identified, clarified, interrogated, and revised by all parties before the larger discussion can proceed in harmony. This includes @Rodney97939539’s assumption that Trump’s reign is comparable to a dictatorship, the potential implication that America is superior to Cuba or Saudi Arabia, and other nitty-gritties. If, then, we identify a postulation as such, as closer to the ideal form of rhetoric and discourse in politics, it becomes apparent that this thread highlights just how far human relations are from arriving at this desired stage.
To dismiss this interaction as merely anecdotal would be a grave underestimation of the state of rhetoric and discourse in the age of the Internet. Even with respect to this tweet by Trump, it would not be an exaggeration to approximate that, in the replies, hundreds of similar arguments would have been its outcome. It is common knowledge that, not only is this (shall we coin the term) primitive rhetoric the predicament of the United States, but also of India, U.K., Brazil, Turkey, Bangladesh, Colombia, etc.
The superficiality of this primitive rhetoric, it may be fair to suggest, is not only constrained to the Internet, but is also applicable to debates on television, or in conversations between friends and family. This is, of course, not to posit a universality and inevitability to primitive rhetoric, but instead an acknowledgment—validated by the boom of the Internet, an increase in radical policy making, the manifestation of religious beliefs and the increasing polarization of countries—that it is certainly a growing trend.
Rhetoric may be identified both as an instrument of power and of resistance. It can, through its persuasive ability, redefine the very nature of truth and enlarge the armies of its professed ideology. This importance of rhetoric in politics has already been acknowledged on a general level. Through the rhetoric and discourse of, say, law, morality, or the views of friends and family, the individual’s mind can be influenced to believe or be immune to a particular ideology. There is, however, another observation regarding rhetoric which, after being examined, will aid us in understanding its peculiar relation with it, rationality, emotions and reality.
“Three plus one equals four.” Let us analyse this simple assertion from the standpoint of rationality. While, at first glance, its truth value seems secure, there are a set of assumptions and probabilities that contribute to this truth. One, for instance, is of the numbers ‘1’, ‘3’ and ‘4’ being represented by the words ‘one’, ‘three’ and ‘four’. The reader is presumed to know this. There is also the law of addition encapsulated in the word ‘plus’, which dictates that the quantity of the two numbers ‘three’ and ‘one’ can add to four and only four. Along with the law of addition, the reader is assumed to know other sub-laws, such as the commutative law (if 3 + 1 = 4, then 1 + 3 = 4). The reader is presumed to know English. And so on.
If we assume a person to be unaware or unaccepting of the very existence of these laws, then not only is it likely that they will reject this postulation, but it is also possible that they will not understand how other minds readily arrived at this conclusion. Therefore, when a rational form of reasoning is applied to any sentence, that rationality itself is contingent on a set of assumptions that the sentence trusts the reader to know and agree with. Even those list of assumptions are not the product of divine or unquestionable truth, but contingent on another set of assumptions.14
There is, thus, an infinite regress of assumptions that lurks behind the proclamation of each and every ‘fact’, that society as a whole silently agrees upon as a matter of convenience. Therefore, even “three plus one equals four” becomes, from the standpoint of rationality, not an absolute truth inasmuch as it remains a statement of rhetoric; since, through its set of assumptions and probabilities, it attempts to persuade the reader into agreeing with this socially constructed truth.
If, then, we were to extend this analogy to a larger scale, the result would be the same. And it is from here that comes the not uncommon notion in philosophy, that the institutions of monarchy, democracy, science, economics, etc. is, in the final analysis, all a social construct. This conclusion is in fact the necessary and inescapable product of pure rational thought.
However, the dangers of pure rationality are mirrored in the inherent inertia of Skeptic philosophy. If nothing in this universe can be said for certain, how can any meaning or reality be derived? If the interests of all individuals are a construct, why do we continue to indulge in them? If the discourse of politics is to implement rationality till its extreme, would not all points be open to infinite interrogation? Would not all judgements (and, in its practical application, all votes) be perpetually suspended?
I think that the necessary conclusion of rationality is at odds with the innate human tendency of appropriating meaning and reality whenever and wherever possible. A cursory glance at each and every human in the world proves their necessity to conform, at least, to some realities—be it in the form of historical knowledge, inherent principles or simple observations about their environment. That is not to say that those realities cannot be developed or altered. However, the fact that they manifest themselves—even if it is merely momentary—in every individual is evidence of its existence. Even the greatest rationalists and epistemologists, I think, fail to apprehend that the sophomoric and overly forensic nature of this philosophy will never be confronted as a reality for the likes of any human.
The aforementioned concept of society as a set of constructs, I think, lends itself to impersonality; which is to say, if the Christian manner of life is ultimately a construct, how do people find meaning in it? Why do they wage wars in its name? It may be that, rationally speaking, all beliefs are constructs, but does that stop any individual from affirming or acting upon them, regardless?
Consider the average person who thinks it true that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. They then learn that the sun does not rise in the east (for, as far as science is to be believed, it is technically the sun that remains stationary). However, perhaps out of sheer convenience, they understandably continue to affirm their previously-held belief as truth. Contrast this with an astronomer or scientist who may, upon contemplation, acknowledge the newfound truth till the extent that it changes the reality of their previous affirmation of the sun rising in the east. There is, thus, a subjective set of assumptions inherent to each individual for it to be accepted or rejected as truth.
In both parts of the twofold character of the political, then, person A may simply assume as a reality that dogs are better animals than cats. Person B might think that the Aryans are the supreme race on Earth. Person C might believe that all humans were born equal. These are all beliefs that manifest into concrete reality. The real question, then, is what element of the human being causes the concretization of these set of assumptions into reality; this subjective line between absolute truth and probable truth.
I am an individual and, rationally speaking, I am a construct; yet I identify myself as a painter and a fan of cricket. The fact that I did not, instead, identify myself by my hair colour, my skillset or my hatred for the LA Clippers shows that, even in the list of qualities and interest I ascribe to myself, there is an inherent hierarchy in what I perceive essential and non-essential to my being. I attach, for instance, stronger emotions to painting than I attach to my hair colour. It is an emotional magnitude ascribed to these qualities that assigned truth to my beliefs.
David Hume explores this relation between emotions and rationality, concluding that, because of the malleability of each and every rational statement, it is passions that twist reason, instead of the popular perception that it is the other way around. If an argument against a person’s perceived truth is strong enough to interrogate not only their set of assumptions, but also the emotions ascribed to them, then there is an increase in the probability of their truth changing.
Ideologies may be a construct, but the emotions that humans attach to them fashion these ideologies into concrete reality. Even if Donald Trump has a rational basis upon which he could be considered the greatest President of all time, those parameters would be merely supplementary to an individual’s inherent emotional affiliation with him.15
Once this line of assumption governed by emotions is understood, the importance of rhetoric becomes, in the sense of the derivation of any meaning, indispensable. In a world where no sentence can rationally be said to be certain, the function of rhetoric is that it can create truths by manner of persuasion. It can, through the careful art of presenting its point of view, dominate other points of view, even if some of them can oppose it. In addition, rhetoric; assuming it manages to sufficiently interrogate both one’s list of assumptions and the emotions ascribed to them; can change truth as well as create it.
The task of rhetoric in the sphere of politics is sacred. If its articulacy, persuasive capability, emotional application and several other factors are designed with utmost care and sincerity, not to mention rigorously adhered to from all its members, only then can humanity reset its course toward a more beneficial form of discourse; one that minimizes polarization and promotes healthy debate.
A few conclusions may be derived from this analysis. Firstly, to reiterate, the aforementioned interaction on Twitter proves how primitive the rhetoric of the 21st century is from the ideal.16 Secondly, that the rise of a post-truth world—where fake news, trolls, memes, identity politics, etc. are advanced enough to be simply accepted as part and parcel of discourse in politics—being completely antithetical to the spirit of the search of a common truth, can lend one to the interpretation that rhetoric is not in a state of advancement, but of decay.17
Thirdly, that if this ravaged land of discourse continues its decay, then humanity may reach that hypothetical stage where an absurdly high number of news articles or quotes can be accused of being manipulated or fabricated. Credibility can lose the meaning of its word. If rhetoric reaches that point where almost its every unit can, on a conscious level, be interrogated by those on the other side of the fence (and, as infinite regress occurs, even those interrogations are interrogated), then how can anyone trust any news to be true? How can anyone assert any stance on politics to be the result of an informed decision?
In the midst of this rise in ambiguity and decaying rhetoric, why is, for instance, an “extremely difficult” formation of what Syed terms the ‘counterpolitical’18 considered, by those engaged in politics, a more viable option than a simple, peaceful renunciation from the uncontrollable domain of politics? (Syed 16 – Dismantling the Political) Why is the unrealism behind that conclusion considered more acceptable and more of a necessity, than the correspondingly perfectly realistic conclusion of an individual who wishes not to participate in a battle, that he has rationally identified as unwinnable?
However, in rhetoric, the apolitical argument finds its greatest credence not in rationality, but in the correlation between emotions and subjective reality. If (as aforementioned) emotions are the primary cause of investment into the sphere of politics, then the apolitical individual’s reason of abstinence is precisely the absence of these emotions. The apolitical individual does not venture an opinion because they do not have the emotional capacity to differentiate Johnson from Trump, Erdogan from Modi, etc. These people and their supposed actions, assuming the rhetoric relaying these actions are credible, are as naturally indifferent to the apolitical-minded as fruits are for the carnivore, or Muhammad Ali is to chess.
Thus, while the historical argument explored a cause of the natural indifference of apolitical individuals, here we see its practical application.
Footnotes
13. @realDonaldTrump: “I will be having a White House Press Conference today at 5:30 P.M. Thank you!”
14. It must, therefore, come as no surprise that the Cartesian approach emphasizes a step-by-step mode of reasoning, wherein complex inferences are derived from simple premises.
15. That degree of emotional affiliation may, of course, be informed by their selective observation, experience and knowledge.
16. There is, I think, a perception that the general growth or development of a civilization will correspond to a healthier form of rhetoric; that once enough people are educated, they will develop the necessary cognitive skills to abandon their orthodox, polemical discourse. However, that England’s economy being far superior to India—or that it having (in relation to India) a greater literacy rate--has still not prevented both nations from transcending this primitive rhetoric, dismisses this perception on both counts. The causes and effects of primitive rhetoric must not be conveniently hunted for in educational institutions or governments. The fault is not in our stars, but in ourselves.
17. The conclusion that it is not rationality but a peculiar mixture of emotions + rationality that must be the object of rhetoric in politics, is a personal one, and of course open to debate. As of now, the general consensus seems to be that a purely rational standpoint is the best form of rhetoric. That may well be the case. However, that humans have gone backwards in their aim to even normalise rational rhetoric seems to me like further evidence of decay. If rhetoric cannot even come to a consensus on basic rationality, how many centuries will pass before the general population can acknowledge the pitfalls of rationality itself, or ponder upon an alternative method?
18. “The hierarchies of power quickly re-establish themselves. In order to obviate this possibility, it must be ensured that the very logic of the system of resistance is antithetical to the logic of power, such that it is impossible for those in control of power to appropriate resistance. By the ‘counterpolitical’ I mean basically this alternative logic.” (Syed 16 – Dismantling the Political)
Date of publication: 13 May 2020
Comments